The consumer’s issue:
“I bought an extended warranty as part of my used car purchase from a dealership in October 2018. However, when my car broke down with a puncture at the roadside, I looked in my glovebox for details of my warranty agreement, and the only number I could find in my owner’s manual was that for roadside assistance from breakdown provider 1.
Nevertheless, when I called them, they could not locate any warranty or roadside agreement in my name, so I had to pay an upfront fee of £180 so they would come out to help me. After the puncture was repaired, I contacted the dealership for a refund of my £180, but they refused, saying that, whilst my new car warranty included roadside assistance from this provider, my extended warranty included roadside assistance provided by breakdown provider 2, and that if I’d called them instead of breakdown provider 1, I would have avoided the expense I incurred.
The dealership did offer a tank of fuel as a goodwill gesture, but I do not feel this is reasonable, as the dealership should have placed a copy of my extended warranty documents or the contact number for the warranty provider in my glovebox and removed the phone number for breakdown provider 1.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The extended warranty agreement obtained by the consumer as part of their purchase, provided them with roadside assistance through breakdown provider 2. This was detailed in the agreement.
- This documentation was provided to the consumer at the time of the sale, and they had not contacted us at any point to indicate they had not received this paperwork.
- We did not remove the phone number for the original roadside assistance provider from the car as at the time of the sale. In fact, this agreement remained in force and the extended warranty cover only began upon its expiration.
- We therefore do not accept responsibility for the consumer’s claimed losses of £180.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator reviewed the evidence, but noted there was nothing that conclusively showed whether the consumer was provided with a copy of the warranty terms at the time of its sale or otherwise. He was therefore unable to make any conclusions about whether the dealership’s obligation to provide the consumer with a copy of the warranty terms had been breached.
- However, the adjudicator also felt that, as the breakdown occurred during business hours, and the consumer was aware they had paid for an extended warranty that included roadside assistance as part of the vehicle purchase, it was likely this cost would have been avoided if contact had been made with the dealership once the consumer was informed by breakdown provider 1 that it held no record of their cover.
- The adjudicator explained that, as he was unable to agree that the costs claimed by the consumer were an unavoidable consequence of a Code breach, the reimbursement and complaint could not be upheld in their favour.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not respond to the adjudication decision within the given timeframe and, as a result, their case was closed.
